4 ms·

It seems the original ones (from the mastodon post) are - https://github.com/emenel/dust https://github.com/emenel/dust - https://github.com/emenel/portfolio

by yreg 3y ago

It seems the original ones (from the mastodon post) are - https://github.com/emenel/dust https://github.com/emenel/dust - https://github.com/emenel/portfolio https://github.com/emenel/portfolio (based on https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/search/?q=emenel&with_visit=true&with_content=true https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/search/?q=emenel...) Care to check them on gharchive? I bet they used to be public.

latexr 3y ago
> based on The data for The Stack’s dataset is sourced from the Software Heritage Archive, so checking that is redundant. We need different sources.
- mkishi 3y ago
  Even still, both repos had READMEs [1][2] clearly meant to be read by the public. The archival was only successful years ago, with a failed snapshot as far back as 2021 [3]. This really seems like they forgot it was ever public. Now, this is only about it being a GitHub breach. Whether unlicensed (emenel/portfolio) or GPL (emenel/dust) code should be allowed in such datasets is a different matter. [1] https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory/?origin_url=https://github.com/emenel/portfolio https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory... [2] https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory/?origin_url=https://github.com/emenel/dust https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory... [3] https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/visits/?origin_url=https://github.com/emenel/portfolio https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/visits/?o...
- yreg 3y ago
  I used SW Heritage to identify the repos that were used for training, since op did not post the repo names. The “different source” is supposed to be ghactions.
sdesol 3y ago
I checked my GitHub archive data and emenel/dust is not there, but emenel/portfolio is. Note, GitHub archive is not 100% accurate and it is missing 319 hours.

by yreg 3y ago

latexr 3y ago

> based on The data for The Stack’s dataset is sourced from the Software Heritage Archive, so checking that is redundant. We need different sources.

mkishi 3y ago
Even still, both repos had READMEs [1][2] clearly meant to be read by the public. The archival was only successful years ago, with a failed snapshot as far back as 2021 [3]. This really seems like they forgot it was ever public. Now, this is only about it being a GitHub breach. Whether unlicensed (emenel/portfolio) or GPL (emenel/dust) code should be allowed in such datasets is a different matter. [1] https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory/?origin_url=https://github.com/emenel/portfolio https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory... [2] https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory/?origin_url=https://github.com/emenel/dust https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory... [3] https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/visits/?origin_url=https://github.com/emenel/portfolio https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/visits/?o...
yreg 3y ago
I used SW Heritage to identify the repos that were used for training, since op did not post the repo names. The “different source” is supposed to be ghactions.

sdesol 3y ago

I checked my GitHub archive data and emenel/dust is not there, but emenel/portfolio is. Note, GitHub archive is not 100% accurate and it is missing 319 hours.